Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36639799›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2023

Ethics and governance of trustworthy medical artificial intelligence.

Jie Zhang, Zong-Ming Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 159 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
159citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

159 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The Role of AI in Nursing Education and Practice: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

99 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jie ZhangInstitute of Literature in Chinese Medicine, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210023, China.
Zong-Ming ZhangResearch Center of Chinese Medicine Culture, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210023, China. zhangzongming23@163.com.

Funding

National Social Science Fund of China 18ZDA322
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe growing application of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has brought technological breakthroughs to traditional diagnosis and treatment, but it is accompanied by many risks and challenges. These adverse effects are also seen as ethical issues and affect trustworthiness in medical AI and need to be managed through identification, prognosis and monitoring.

methodsWe adopted a multidisciplinary approach and summarized five subjects that influence the trustworthiness of medical AI: data quality, algorithmic bias, opacity, safety and security, and responsibility attribution, and discussed these factors from the perspectives of technology, law, and healthcare stakeholders and institutions. The ethical framework of ethical values-ethical principles-ethical norms is used to propose corresponding ethical governance countermeasures for trustworthy medical AI from the ethical, legal, and regulatory aspects.

resultsMedical data are primarily unstructured, lacking uniform and standardized annotation, and data quality will directly affect the quality of medical AI algorithm models. Algorithmic bias can affect AI clinical predictions and exacerbate health disparities. The opacity of algorithms affects patients' and doctors' trust in medical AI, and algorithmic errors or security vulnerabilities can pose significant risks and harm to patients. The involvement of medical AI in clinical practices may threaten doctors 'and patients' autonomy and dignity. When accidents occur with medical AI, the responsibility attribution is not clear. All these factors affect people's trust in medical AI.

conclusionsIn order to make medical AI trustworthy, at the ethical level, the ethical value orientation of promoting human health should first and foremost be considered as the top-level design. At the legal level, current medical AI does not have moral status and humans remain the duty bearers. At the regulatory level, strengthening data quality management, improving algorithm transparency and traceability to reduce algorithm bias, and regulating and reviewing the whole process of the AI industry to control risks are proposed. It is also necessary to encourage multiple parties to discuss and assess AI risks and social impacts, and to strengthen international cooperation and communication.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceData ManagementDelivery of Health CareHumansPrognosisAlgorithmsArtificial intelligenceDataEthicsGovernanceHealthcareRegulationResponsibility attribution

Identifiers

PMID36639799
PMCPMC9840286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.